Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Justice Weighs Desire v. Duty (Duty Prevails)--NYTimes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 06:13 AM
Original message
Justice Weighs Desire v. Duty (Duty Prevails)--NYTimes
The Constitution Made Me Do It! and other fables by John Paul Stevens:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/politics/25memo.html?hp&ex=1125028800&en=fc0731cc95daae22&ei=5094&partner=homepage




By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: August 25, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 - It is not every day that a Supreme Court justice calls his own decisions unwise. But with unusual candor, Justice John Paul Stevens did that last week in a speech in which he explored the gap that sometimes lies between a judge's desire and duty.

Justice John Paul Stevens at an American Bar Association meeting this month in Chicago, where he was critical of the death penalty.
Addressing a bar association meeting in Las Vegas, Justice Stevens dissected several of the recent term's decisions, including his own majority opinions in two of the term's most prominent cases. The outcomes were "unwise," he said, but "in each I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator."

In one, the eminent domain case that became the term's most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government's "taking" of private homes for a commercial development in New London, Conn., brought about a result "entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program" that was under constitutional attack....


Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the federal government's ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump California's medical marijuana initiative. "I have no hesitation in telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of California voters," he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, "our duty to uphold the application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear."


RANT TIME

It's so interesting that the 2000 election never triggered any public rumination or remorse, isn't it? And if taking people's homes for private corporate profits is in the Constitution, I'll eat said document. What part of "Medical" doesn't compute? The 18th century geniuses who created a document designed to breathe and grow with a growing nation would take one look at these specious arguments and respond "Tcha!" in good old 18th century speech. (That's bullshit, for those too green to history to translate).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TabulaRasa Donating Member (223 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Are you talking about Stevens with that rant?
I believe there was public rumination and remorse in his dissenting opinion on the 2000 election. As I recall, he had some very biting words for the majority in that case, in which he claimed that the loser of the election (the winner remaining unknown because of the stopped recount) was the public's faith in the impartiality of the judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC